ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

December

29, 1983

In the matter of:

G~ D.

SEARLE

& CO~ AND SEARLE

R83~l4

FOOD RESOURCES, INC~,AND

PARK

FOREST SOUTH

UTILITIES COMPANY

ORDER OF THE

BOARD

(by D,

Anderson):

This

matter concerns a petition for adoption of a

site-

specific

water quality rule filed by G~. D. Searle

&

Coo,

Searle Food Resources,

Inc~,

(Searle)

and Park Forest

South

Utilities Company

(PFSU),

The proposal concerns

discharges

of total dissolved

solids, chloride and sulfate

from Searle’s

aspartame

production facility in Park Forest South to

sewers

owned by

PFSU,

The proposal was filed on June

3, 1983~

In response

to

the

Hearing Officer!s efforts to schedule

a

hearing, the

proponents

on October 28,

1983 filed

a

motion for

continuance,

requesting

a

delay until after resolution of the related

variance petition

in PCB 83—73.

On November 17,

1983 the

Hearing

Officer granted the continuance through December,

1983,

after the due

date

of the related variance petitions

On November 21, the

Hearing Officer wrote

a letter to

the

participants

suggesting hearing dates

in January

and

February,

l984~ On November 28 the proponents requested

a

further delay pending completion of studies Searle h~d

offered to undertake as

a condition

o...f the variance in

PCB

83~73,

These studies would not be available until after

a delay of

two years~

On

December

15,

1983 the Illinois

Environmental

Protection Agency filed a motion to dismiss,

citing

the November 28 letter

as proof that the proponents

were

not

ready to proceeth

On December

28,

1983 proponents

filed

a response asking that the petition not be

dismissed

and

indicating that they would be ready to commence

hearings

in June

of l984~

Keeping tentative proposals on the docket while the

proponent

gathers sufficient information to present at

merit

hearings

imposes a significant administrative burden

on the

Board.

Furthermore,

it may force the Department

of Energy

and

Natural Resources to prematurely commence work on an

economic

impact study~

In the past the Board has

dismissed

such

proposals where the proponent is not actually ready

to

go forward

to merit hearings

(Rowe Foun~~,R8l-15,

48

PCB

199, September

15,

1982)

---

—2—

The Board finds that the proponents are not ready to go

forward with this matter.

The motion

to dismiss

with leave to refile at such time

as proponents are ready to

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I, Christan L, Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, hereby certify that the above Order was adopted

on the

~

day of

~

1983 by a vote of 7—c

Christan

L.

Mot~flht,

Clerk

Illinois

PoLLutibn

Control

Board